I just don't get it

I just watched the film last night for the first time, and I completely loved it. Strangely enough, I just saw OUATITW for the first time as well, just a week or so ago, so I feel compelled to respond. I loved both, but I do think that it's funny that you'd think that High Noon is vague when OUATITW was so drawn out that you had to wait an hour or more to learn the basic plot and character points that the film depended on (for example, why were the three guys waiting for Harmonica at the train station - we don't even begin to learn that until Harmonica finally meets up with Henry Fonda's character, which is at least an hour into the film, and you don't understand it entirely until the very end of the film). Again, not to bag on that film, because I agree, it's superlative. But High Noon is a lot more direct. It's not vague at all - you learn pretty quickly that Frank Miller, a psychopath, once ran this town with his violent ways, ruining it for "decent people" - ironically, the very folks that refuse to help defend it - and he has been released from prison by know-nothing bureaucrats thousands of miles away to seek his revenge. The plot is tiny, compared to today's stadards, I suppose. It's simply one man's personal journey through his own sense of what's right. He comes to the conclusion that he can't run away, he has to see this business to the finish, even if it means his own demise. Even when everyone in town, including his own wife, beg him to leave, he knows that his personal code of conduct won't accept that. Even if Frank Miller had never been able to follow them and track them until they had to fight, which Kane told Amy that Frank would, it's Kane's own personal code of conduct, his personal view of what's right and wrong, that would have followed him. He would have known that he ran away from a fight. THAT'S what would have killed him, literally or metaphorically. His own cowardice. When you put on that badge, you agree to live up to those principles. And even though he had already taken it off of his clothing, he couldn't take the "tin star" off of his conscience.

Then, of course, you begin to see through his search for his "posse" that no one shared his principled view. That folks were prepared to hand the town back over to the mad-dog that Kane had once vanquished, rather than stand up and fight. I mean, there were a couple that still had integrity - the fourteen year old kis that wanted to fight with him, the drunk with the eye patch, and that one guy in church who allowed himself to be talked into that preposterous "there's not going to BE any trouble - none at all! Yay!" argument that the other gentleman laid down (interestingly played by the guy who played Scarlett O'Hara's father in Gone with the Wind). But the people that should have stuck by him all let him down one by one.

This is the reason that I call the plot "tiny". It's the most personal journey that a man can take. Taking the measure of his own integrity, and comparing that with the integrity of the other townsfolk. But within that personal journey, the lessons learned are truly epic.

That's the message that I beleive the filmmaker wanted us to take away. Nothing less than "What are you capable of? What are your neighbors capable of? If the chips are down, is anyone really trustworthy to stand up for anyone?" And we see that in this town, like in life, even noble deeds in your past, and a lifetime of public service don't insure that people will stand up for you, or even themselves. Those people were ready to see their town destroyed rather than stand up to these guys! I mean, it astounds me to even think about it.

Now, if you want to ask why, for example, some of the more upstanding guys didn't just say "Ok, I see that the traditional stand up in the main street and shoot at each other kind of fight isn't exactly balanced in this case, so why don't we post snipers in the second story windows of a few of these lovely buildings we've got here and just shoot at the bad guys like a turkey shoot" then I can't help you. I am baffled that they thought their only recourse was the classic shoot out. I mean, you know these guys are bad news, they're all criminals. I understand that Kane couldn't arrest them, as he said, they hadn't committed any crimes yet (although as soon as the one guy had broken the window of the dressmakers shop and stole the hat, even that goes out the window) but that mindset of "we'll just do nothing instead of ANYTHING", well, that doesn't sit right with me either. It strained the credibility of the film just a tiny bit for me.

Nevertheless, it is a masterwork that stands up to the test of time, adn I will happily recommend it to anyone. I don't particularly care for the Western genre in general, but this was a film that trancended even its own genre.

I liked Cooper’s performance. I like the soundtrack, the cinematography, the screenplay / dialogue

The one issue I have is that Cooper survives, particularly because his wife saves him. All along, I thought the message of the movie is that we’re all ultimately alone in the world. When death (Miller) comes, then friendships, family, good deeds - nothing and nobody will help you. I thought the movie was aiming for this message

But then Kane ends up surviving and running off with the girl. So I’m not exactly sure what to make of the film